Tag Archives: judge panel

The U.S. military can continue enforcing “don’t ask don’t tell” pending the government’s appeal of a district judge’s decision declaring the policy unconstitutional.

With one justice dissenting, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday issued a stay of the district judge’s injunction barring the military from enforcing the policy.

The appeals court had already granted a temporary stay of the injunction, but Monday’s decision extends the stay for the duration of the appeal, which will take at least several months.

“In addition to the fact that this case raises ‘serious legal questions,'” the court wrote, “there are three reasons that persuade us to grant a stay pending appeal.”

The reasons included that “Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional,” that “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies” and that “the district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal.”

Dan Woods, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, issued the following statement:

“The court’s ruling is a disappointment not only to us, but also to all homosexual servicemembers who bravely put themselves in harm’s way so that we can all enjoy the constitutional rights and freedoms that they themselves are being denied. The decision only slows the day when military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, who want nothing more than to serve their country honorably and patriotically. We will continue to fight on for the constitutional rights of these Americans and look forward to a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal. Meanwhile, we will discuss the court’s order with our client to determine whether we will ask for a review of the order by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin, said in a statement, “Log Cabin Republicans is disappointed that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will continue to burden our armed forces, undermine national security and limit the freedom of our men and women in uniform. Despite this temporary setback, Log Cabin remains confident that we will ultimately prevail on behalf of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. In the meantime, we urge President Obama to use his statutory stop-loss power to halt discharges under this discriminatory and wasteful policy. The president claims to want to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns.”

“Don’t ask don’t tell” likely will soon go back into effect, after a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay Wednesday of a district judge’s previous order halting enforcement of the policy.

The U.S. Department of Justice requested an emergency stay of the order from District Judge Virginia Phillips, who ruled in September that the policy is unconstitutional, in a lawsuit brought by Log Cabin Republicans. Phillips issued an order halting enforcement of the policy last week, and denied the government’s request for an emergency stay on Tuesday. However, the DOJ then requested an emergency stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will hear the government’s appeal of Phillips’ ruling.

Wednesday’s temporary stay, issued by a three-judge panel of the appeals court, means the ban on open service is legally enforceable again. The temporary stay will remain in effect until sometime after Oct. 25, when the Ninth Circuit court decides whether to leave it in place pending the appeal.

“This interim temporary stay means that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is once again on the books, and is likely to be enforced by the Defense Department,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “Gay and lesbian service members deserve better treatment than they are getting with this ruling. We now must look to the Senate next month in the lame duck session to bring about the swift certainty needed here and to repeal this unjust law that serves no useful purpose.”

It’s unclear how Wednesday’s stay will affect gays and lesbians who may have enlisted during the eight days since Phillips’ injunction when the policy was unenforceable.

“The revival of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law is a sad day for all Americans who want the best and brightest service members defending our country,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Today’s decision only furthers our resolve to send this law to the dustbin of history and also draws a spotlight on the administration to make good on their pledge to end these discharges that damage our national security.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he hopes the appeals court will opt not to extend the stay during the appeal, which will take at least several months.

“While we are obviously disappointed that the injunction was temporarily stayed, we hope that the Ninth Circuit will recognize the inherent contradiction in the government’s arguments for a longer stay in light of eight full days of non-enforcement with no ‘enormous consequences,” Nicholson said. “An objective look at the evidence before the court clearly indicates that ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would not harm military readiness, but would rather enhance it.”

GetEQUAL announced that it will be protesting Thursday when President Barack Obama visits Seattle.

“This temporary stay, sought by President Obama’s Department of Justice, bring the military’s discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law back from the dead,” said Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEQUAL. “It is a travesty that after numerous attempts, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will go down in history as the Administration that breathed life back into ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The lives and careers of openly gay and lesbian servicemembers are now back in the crosshairs of our government and a renewed commitment to discrimination falls squarely in the hands of this White House.”

Attorneys for a gay Dallas man who’s seeking a divorce from his husband filed a motion this week requesting a re-hearing of the case by the full 5th District Court of Appeals.

An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the Dallas appeals court ruled Aug. 31 that the man, identified in court documents as J.B., cannot obtain a divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

J.B. and his attorneys had the option of dropping the matter, appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, or requesting a re-hearing by the 13-justice 5th District Court en banc. They filed their motion seeking the rehearing on Wednesday, Sept. 15.

“We believe adequate grounds exist for the entire court of appeals to reconsider the panel’s opinion, and we hope the entire Dallas court of appeals will do that,” said James J. “Jody” Scheske of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Austin firm representing J.B.

Scheske said for the request to be granted, a majority of the 13 justices would have to agree to rehear the case.

Depending on the outcome, Scheske said he’s unsure whether they’ll appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

“We’re taking it one step at a time,” Scheske said. “We’re hopeful the entire court of appeals will issue an opinion we can live with, in which case further appeal won’t be necessary.”

J.B. and his partner, H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006. After they moved to Dallas, J.B. filed for a divorce in 2008.

Attorneys for a gay Dallas man who’s seeking a divorce from his husband have filed a motion requesting a re-hearing of the case by the full 5th District Court of Appeals.

An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the Dallas appeals court ruled in August that the man, identified in court documents as J.B., cannot obtain a divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

J.B. and his attorneys had the option of dropping the matter, appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, or requesting a re-hearing by the 13-justice 5th District Court en banc.

“We believe adequate grounds exist for the entire Court of Appeals to reconsider the panel’s opinion, and we hope the entire Dallas court of appeals will do that,” said attorney James J. “Jody” Scheske of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Austin firm representing J.B.

Scheske said for the request to be granted, a majority of the 13 justices would have to agree to rehear the case. There is no timeframe for the court to rule on the request, he said. Depending on the outcome, Scheske said he’s unsure whether his client will appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

“We’re taking it one step at a time,” Scheske said. “We’re hopeful the entire court of appeals will issue an opinion we can live with, in which case further appeal won’t be necessary.”

J.B. and his partner, H.B., were married in Massachusetts in 2006. After they moved to Dallas, J.B. filed for a divorce in 2008.

In October of last year, Democratic District Judge Tena Callahan ruled she had jurisdiction to hear J.B.’s divorce petition, saying Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Ruling means case may hinge on whether Yes on 8 has standing

Lisa Keen | Keen News Service

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday night, Sept. 8 denied a petition from a conservative group seeking to force California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to participate in an appeal of the Proposition 8 case.

The full court issued its decision with a simple two-sentence declaration, denying a petition from the Pacific Justice Institute. The denial came just hours after Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted letters to the court, explaining that they were not participating in the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

In a letter from his attorney, Gov. Schwarzenegger indicated what had been uncertain before — that he had decided not to appeal the Proposition 8 court decision to the 9th Circuit.

The definitive statement from Schwarzenegger — coupled with the state supreme court’s refusal to require state participation in the appeal — means the ability of Proposition 8 proponents to appeal may depend entirely on the legal standing of the Yes on 8 coalition. (There is one remaining possibility: the County Board of Supervisors of Imperial County, California, has asked to serve as an intervenor in the appeal. Because the county issues marriage licenses, it may be able to demonstrate a necessary element of standing — that it is impacted by the district court decision.)

Gov. Schwarzenegger had until Sept. 11 to make a decision and, though his position on marriage equality for gay couples has been changing, his most recent statements seemed to indicate he would not direct the state’s attorney general to appeal the decision from the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

That decision, issued Aug. 4 by Judge Vaughn Walker, found Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional guarantee to equal protection. The Yes on 8 coalition filed its appeal, and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit has said it will hear the appeal during the first week of December, along with arguments concerning whether the Yes on 8 coalition has standing to appeal.

Hoping to shore up the legitimacy of that appeal, the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal group, filed an appeal — Beckley v. Schwarzenegger — to the California Supreme Court this week, asking justices to force the governor to instruct the attorney general to join the appeal in the 9th Circuit.

The state supreme court ordered the governor and attorney general to weigh in on this matter Wednesday. And, in a five-page letter Sept. 8, Counsel for the Governor Andrew Stroud told the court, “Although Beckley may disagree with the Governor’s decision not to file a notice of appeal [in the Proposition 8 case in federal court], it was the Governor’s decision to make.”

A letter from Attorney General Jerry Brown’s deputy, Tamar Pachter, reiterated that Brown has long opposed Proposition 8 as unconstitutional and that Brown’s decision not to appeal the federal court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger “is an ordinary and sound exercise of the discretion secured by law to his office.”

Pachter says the Pacific Justice Institute’s petition is based on its “fears that the the federal courts will rule that [Yes on 8 proponents] lack standing to pursue their appeal …”

“But the Attorney General has no duty to appeal at all, let alone to file an appeal he has determined is legally unjustified, soley to manufacture federal appellate standing in private parties,” wrote Pachter.

A state appeals court in Dallas has ruled that two gay men who were married in Massachusetts cannot obtain a divorce in Texas.

The ruling came from the 5th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday in the case, In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.

J.B. and H.B. married in Massachusetts in 2006 and filed for a divorce in Texas in January 2009 after moving here. Massachusetts, which has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, has a residency requirement for divorce.

In October of last year, District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that J.B. and H.B. could obtain a divorce in Texas, saying that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Callahan’s decision was immediately appealed by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who argued that same-sex couples cannot divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. An all-Republican, three-judge panel of the appeals court heard oral arguments in the case in April.

“We hold that Texas district courts do not have the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case,” the panel said in Tuesday’s ruling. “Texas’s laws compelling this result do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Pete Schulte, a gay Dallas attorney who serves as co-counsel for J.B. in the case, issued a statement Tuesday afternoon.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the AG’s office, said in a statement: “Today’s Court of Appeals decision overruled the District Court’s improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas’ traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples. Because the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Court correctly ruled that Texas courts do not have authority to grant a same-sex divorce. Further, the Court rejected the parties constitutional challenge and instead ruled that Texas’ definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Many expect case the case will be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Appeals court has stayed Walker’s ruling, but the case has been fasttracked as appeals over standing, merits work through the system

Chris Stoll

The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California that stayed the lower court’s decision this week ordered the Proposition 8 supporters to defend their standing in the case as it moves up on appeal.

Attorneys following the case closely all called the stay disappointing but were encouraged by the court questioning the standing of the defendants and the fast track timetable.

Chris Stoll is senior staff attorney for National Center for Lesbian Rights, a San Francisco-based organization that filed a brief in the Prop 8 case. He said that although it was disappointed that same-sex couples could not start getting married immediately, he was encouraged that the court fast-tracked the hearing to December and asked both sides to address standing.

Jennifer Pizer, National Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal, said she, too, was not surprised by the stay.

“It’s common for judges to maintain a status quo,” Pizer said.

She said that the stay does not indicate the merits of the case.

In fact, it is quite the opposite, she said, as indicated by the court directing the defendants to justify their standing in the case.

Ken Upton, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal’s South Central Regional office in Dallas, said that the stay “probably isn’t going to matter much” in the long run because the court put the case “on a really short docket.”

Upton said he liked the schedule.

The court will hear the case after the election, but before a new governor takes office in California.

A different governor could decide to defend the case, Upton noted.

Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that there was no basis to continue a stay of his Aug. 4 ruling declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. But he declined to lift his stay early, instead saying that it would expire Aug. 15 at 5 p.m., as he had originally ordered.
That gave the 9th Circuit court time to consider issuing a its own stay.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown had agreed to abide by the lower court’s ruling and said the case should not be appealed.

Since the state was the defendant in the case, the standing of the interveners, the Yes on 8 group that had campaigned for the amendment’s passage and that actually defended the case in court, is now in question.

Stoll explained that in a normal schedule for the 9th Circuit, final briefs might have been filed in December with oral arguments heard in February or later.

With extensions, the case might not have come before the appellate court until well into the spring.

While many cases are decided within weeks, the court is on no deadline. In a more complicated case like this, the decision could take months, Stoll said.

Two cases involving standing will be heard as well as the appeal of the actual ruling.

Officials with Imperial County in southeastern California have filed to defend Proposition 8 on behalf of the state.

And the Yes on 8 group, also known as the interveners, who defended the lower court case are appealing the judge’s decision. But their standing is also being questioned.

Stoll said that traditionally conservatives in the higher courts take a narrower view of standing than liberals.

Jenny Pizer

“In general, they don’t want to be giving opinions that would be advisory and don’t have an impact on real people,” he said. “If the state is willing to abide by the trial court’s opinion, should the courts hear the case?”

When the court rules, presumably it will address standing first. If they find that the interveners and Imperial County officials do not have standing, Stoll said he didn’t expect any further discussion of the case by the court.

If they rule that either of the interveners have standing, then they will rule on the constitutional question.

To show that they have standing to appeal, the interveners “need to show they’ve been harmed to make a federal case out of it,” Pizer said.

“When a law is challenged as being unconstitutional, they can’t just stand up and say, ‘But we really, really want it.’ That works on Fox TV, but not in court.”

However, if the appeals court rules the interveners do not have standing, they can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If that court finds that they do have standing, the case would return to the Circuit Court for a ruling on the legal issues.

If the appellate court finds that the interveners do have standing, then that court will rule on the merits of the case, deciding whether Judge Walker’s interpretation of law was correct and if Proposition 8 is illegal under California’s constitution.

When the three-judge panel that will hear the case makes that decision, either side can petition for the case to be heard “en banc,” which means by the full court. But in the 9th Circuit court, it means a panel of 11 judges chosen randomly from among the 29 on the court.

The ruling by the 11-member panel could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pizer sees the expedited hearing schedule and the court’s decision to issue the stay as a compromise made by the court.

“The stay keeps things simpler,” she said.

Pizer said that until the hearing, both sides would be writing briefs. The defense will be arguing that they have standing in the case and that in his decision Judge Walker misread the law.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the two high-profile attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, will argue that the interveners have no standing since they are not the ones issuing marriage licenses. Their briefs will argue that the defendants presented no credible witnesses or evidence and the only ones harmed by Proposition 8 are same-sex couples waiting to get married.

Pizer said that the LGBT community should use this time wisely until the case is heard.

“We need to be educating our neighbors about why Judge Walker is correct,” she said.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition August 20, 2010.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order Monday granting Yes on 8’s request for a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeals court panel also ordered, without being asked, that Yes on 8’s appeal of Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger be addressed by the court on an expedited basis.

The panel said it would hear arguments on appeal during the week of Dec. 6, as well as arguments concerning whether Yes on 8 has legal standing to press the appeal.

The two-page order is a disappointment to many same-sex couples in California who were hoping that they would be able to obtain marriage licenses as soon as Judge Walker’s stay expired — at 5 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday.

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,” said Ted Olson, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Olson, one of the most prominent conservative attorneys in the country, launched the high-profile challenge of California’s voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with liberal attorney icon David Boies. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern California (San Francisco), heard three weeks of testimony by the plaintiffs and Proposition 8 supporters in January.

In a dramatic 136-page ruling on Aug. 4, Walker declared the same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Walker agreed to stay — or delay enforcement — of his decision until Aug. 18, giving the 9th Circuit time to decide whether to grant a more extended appeal.

Evan Wolfson, who was a lead attorney on the first same-sex marriage case — in Hawaii in 1996 — called the 9th Circuit panel’s decision to continue Walker’s stay “disappointing.”

“But there are many twists in the road to justice,” said Wolfson, “and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.”

The panel set Sept. 17 as the date Yes on 8’s initial argument brief is due.

The response brief from the Ted Olson-David Boies legal team challenging Proposition 8 is due Oct. 18. And Yes on 8 may reply to plaintiffs’ brief by Nov. 1.

Monday’s order means the same-sex marriage ban will stay intact at least until December, when the 9th Circuit will hear arguments on both the issue of Yes on 8’s standing to appeal and, perhaps, on the merits of Walker’s decision.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, where U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled — in two separate cases — July 9 that the ban on federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, the clock is still ticking down the 60 days the U.S. Department of Justice has to appeal the decisions to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.